Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Thankful to be an American

Discussion in 'Legal' started by SnWnMe, Jun 18, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. SnWnMe

    SnWnMe Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2003
    Messages:
    1,099
    Location:
    Inland Empire
  2. Alex45ACP

    Alex45ACP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2005
    Messages:
    1,464
    Location:
    USA
    Indefinite detainment? We'll have it here soon enough.
     
  3. armoredman

    armoredman Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2003
    Messages:
    16,428
    Location:
    proud to be in AZ
    Gitmo. 'Nuff said.
     
  4. kel

    kel Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2004
    Messages:
    155
    I live in MA

    I wish I could live in America.
     
  5. DRZinn

    DRZinn Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    Messages:
    3,991
    Location:
    In a pot of water, 200 degrees and rising slowly..
    Prisoners of war, held until the end of the conflict. 'Nuff said.
     
  6. RevDisk

    RevDisk Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2004
    Messages:
    1,737
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    A judge must review the case after the first 10 days, then every eight days after that. They're allowed to see their lawyers. Not perfect, but the system is held accountable for its detainees.


    Erm. No, not exactly. A lot of folks at Gitmo we haven't classified as POW's as there are specific laws regarding the treatment of POW's. We use the term "unlawful combatants", "enemy combatants" or whatever these days. This is so prisoners are not afforded civilian or military style legal protections.
     
  7. DRZinn

    DRZinn Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    Messages:
    3,991
    Location:
    In a pot of water, 200 degrees and rising slowly..
    Yeah yeah yeah. I know they're not actually referred to as Prisoners of War. That's because then people would assume (wrongly) that they are POW's as defined in the Geneva Conventions (which they aren't) and subject to the protections thereof. But they are, in point of fact, prisoners of war. And they are held until the war ends.
     
  8. Flyboy

    Flyboy Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    Messages:
    1,888
    Location:
    Oklahoma City, OK
    Which is when?

    I'm not trolling here--when does the war end? There's been no formal declaration of war--indeed, Congress offered one after the attacks, and the President declined--so how, exactly, do we determine when the war is over?
     
  9. JohnBT

    JohnBT Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    13,233
    Location:
    Richmond, Virginia
    When the fighting stops.

    John
     
  10. Delmar

    Delmar Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    2,057
    Location:
    Cedar Bluff, VA
    We use the term "unlawful combatants", "enemy combatants" or whatever these days. This is so prisoners are not afforded civilian or military style legal protections.

    There is a reason for this-also spelled out in the convention. They are not uniformed military, and do not fight under a recognisable flag or country. In not so older times, they would have been shot as spies or common murderers. They should not expect to be treated as well as they are, and technically, have zero protections under the so-called rules of war.
     
  11. Derby FALs

    Derby FALs Member In Memoriam

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2004
    Messages:
    978
    Location:
    Louisville, KY
    I doubt any of us will live that long.
     
  12. Pilot

    Pilot Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    6,633
    Location:
    USA
    First and foremost these "detainees" at Gitmo are not soldiers, they are terrorists which in the past would be shot as spies or kept and traded. They don't wear a uniform of a soveriegn nation, they have no rights as prisoners of war yet we give them these rights and good treatment they do not deserve. They have it better at Gitmo than whatever rat hole they came from. We can keep them however long it takes to get the information we need form them to stop their buddies from killing U.S. civilians and soldiers. Let's worry a little less about these murdering criminals and more about the safety of our soldiers and citizens.
     
  13. Flyboy

    Flyboy Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    Messages:
    1,888
    Location:
    Oklahoma City, OK
    OK, JohnBT, and I think (regrettably) Derby FALs, have come closest to actually answering my question, so I'll pose it again.

    When does the war end? How will we know?

    When the fighting stops? Define that. If we go for a week without firing a shot, is the war over? What if somebody tries something after that? Two weeks? A month? When we pull our troops out? Given that we still have troops in Korea, is that war over? What is our objective definition of "when the fighting stops?" For that matter, what's our objective definition of "fighting?" We've seen the words "fight," "combat," and so forth used to describe actions taken in the financial and intelligence sectors--are those part of the war? Even if we're not actually shooting, are we still "fighting terrorism" when we use intel reports to freeze assets we think are going to be used to fund terrorism? If so, is that sufficient to consider the war to still be ongoing, and to continue to hold people?

    What about the fact that we've been "fighting" crime since, oh, about the dawn of man? The "war on crime" that President Clinton declared doesn't seem to have ended. The "war on drugs?" Hah.

    So, I ask again: if we're going to hold people "until the war ends," when does the war end?
     
  14. mercedesrules

    mercedesrules Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2003
    Messages:
    1,010
    I anxiously await the answers to Flyboy's fine questions.

    Wars usually end when one side surrenders. That's why one should never fight a war against something that can't surrender.

    Some things that can't surrender:

    Drugs.
    Poverty.
    Terrorism.
    Obesity.
    Crime.
    Hunger.
    AIDS.
    Illiteracy.
    Racism.
    Want.
    Etc.
     
  15. thorn726

    thorn726 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2004
    Messages:
    1,388
    Location:
    berkeley, CA
    for real? prisoners caught in iraq, afghanistan,for the most part combatants, ok but Americans? legal immigrants ? many of the detainees were not charged, basically got rounded up for being in the wrong place, taken out of the US so we dont have to obey our own laws.

    glad to be a white american born citizen maybe, but a little ashamed of it too
     
  16. DRZinn

    DRZinn Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    Messages:
    3,991
    Location:
    In a pot of water, 200 degrees and rising slowly..
    You are correct that the war may have no definite end. Too bad. We'll hold them as long as we want.

    Note: I'm talking about the terrorist detainees captured trying to kill Americans. Not the US citizens captured doing something suspicious and never given a trial.

    Edited to add:
    Wrong. There are what, two or three US citizens? Somebody correct me on that, but the vast majority were captured on the battlefield.
     
  17. Flyboy

    Flyboy Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    Messages:
    1,888
    Location:
    Oklahoma City, OK
    OK, fine. Define "trying to kill Americans." Taking a shot, fine. That's pretty clear. Building or placing an IED, also pretty clear. But what of those captured with less definite charges?

    --Maj. General Antonio Taguba, on Abu Ghraib; somehow, I doubt that Gitmo is being handled much better.


    You'll have to forgive me for not trusting my government; it seems I have this nasty habit of watching the news.
     
  18. Delmar

    Delmar Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    2,057
    Location:
    Cedar Bluff, VA
    "Given that we still have troops in Korea, is that war over?"

    Check your history, Flyboy, the answers to your questions are there.
    The CEASEFIRE, signed in 1953 had a 20 year life span, and has never been renewed. I take that to mean we are once again in the "police action" as that dummy Truman called it.

    As to the current war, it will end when:
    1. The terrorists are dead or give up.
    2. When we say it is.
    3. If Gerald Ford gets elected :rolleyes:

    As to how long we hold these folks at gitmo-till we are finished with them, one way or another. We might have made some trades with the bad guys, as we did to get Francis Gary Powers back from the Soviets, but the enemy we face currently either shoot you down in cold blood (documented) or they cut your head off while filming it. Not much left to trade, eh?

    Also why a lot of people don't feel too bad about holding radical muslim extremists indefinately.
     
  19. Ryder

    Ryder Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2002
    Messages:
    2,433
    Location:
    Mid-Michigander
    Pretty sure they've already released a butt load of people back to their countries from GITMO and it goes on. Y'all are watching too much CNN.

    17 orisoners to be freed


    ISLAMABAD, June 22: Pakistan has decided to free 17 nationals who have been detained since their repatriation from the US Guantanamo Bay detention centre nearly one year ago, officials said on Wednesday.

    After their release next week the government also intends to free some 210 prisoners from jails in Punjab who were returned from Afghanistan in batches last year, the officials said.

    “We have decided to release all these prisoners after securing surety bonds on good behaviour from their families,” Tahir Ashrafi, the provincial government’s adviser on religious affairs, told AFP.

    “Surety bonds are being furnished to make sure that these people would not be involved in any violence in the country,” Mr Ashrafi said.
     
  20. GT

    GT Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2005
    Messages:
    353
    Location:
    CT
    All the detainees at Gitmo have received military tribunals and many were released.

    This is all lefty BS

    Get over it.


    G
     
  21. Moondoggie

    Moondoggie Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2004
    Messages:
    724
    Location:
    Small Town, Nebraska
    I've got several thoughts/questions:

    1st...When did the "War on Terror" begin? Was it 9/11, or when the USS Cole was attacked, or when our embassies in Africa were bombed, or when the WTC was first bombed in 93, or when the bomb went off in OKC? Perhaps it was when OBL and his buds got together and decided to murder anybody who didn't see things their way...Muslim, Christian, American, Canadian, Australian, Indonesian, Saudi...doesn't matter to them who they are. OK, since there's no clearcut answer to when it began, how can there be one for when it's over? This is the "New Reality"...it's never gonna be "Over".

    2nd...As far as turning the area in question "into glass" is concerned; do you think the other side would hesitate for a second if they had the capability to do it to us?

    3rd...If Sen Durbin is sooooo concerned about the treatment of these folks (and not primarily interested in bashing the administration...gee, 'Ya think?) then how about if we embark all of the detainees on one-way flights to O'Hare and turn 'em loose in Chicago. They can make their way back home or whatever they choose from there. After all, what's a few hundred more "undocumented immigrints" to a major metro area like Chicago? Since the Democratic People's Republic of Il-annoy and that bastion of civil liberties Chicago has such effective gun control laws, what possible harm could they cause? Another idea would be for those who feel that we're violating these folks civil rights to "Adopt a Detainee" and one could be dropped-off at their house. Let's offer them employment as custodians at the school their kids attend.

    Bottom line...they don't need no stinkin' rules; you can't expect us to play by them either if we're gonna win. Loosing is an unacceptable option.

    Compared to them, our folks have stayed on the high road. The exceptions among our folks have been punishied accordingly.
     
  22. Art Eatman

    Art Eatman Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2002
    Messages:
    43,264
    Location:
    Terlingua, TX; Thomasville,GA
    Given all the semantic confusion extant, I'd venture that the biggest mistake Bush has made is to call it a War on Terror. I think we'd all be better off to say that the Al Qaida group has effectively escalated a condition of warfare against us. Killings, military actions such as assaults or invasions, and other acts by us will only end when Al Qaida and other sympathetic organized groups no longer function in any organized fashion.

    As long as there is religious hatred of "infidels" or "otherness" among militant Islamic jihadists, there well be acts of what we call terrorism. The key is whether these acts are done by random individuals or by organized groups. The former will always be with us, and can only be dealt with in policing fashion.

    Art
     
  23. Ryder

    Ryder Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2002
    Messages:
    2,433
    Location:
    Mid-Michigander
    Art -
    Yup, and it wasn't easy! Osama's original declaration of war against us is on file with the FBI and was received 9 years before 9/11 (shortly before the first attempt to detroy the twin towers). I'd point to that as being the answer to your question on when the war started Moondoggie. Even though we didn't know it then and many still don't now considering how well that particular bit of incompetance was waxed over.
     
  24. White Horseradish

    White Horseradish Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2004
    Messages:
    1,352
    Location:
    Minnesota
    So. If we suspend some rights because we must make sacrifices in time of war, but the war is permanent, doesn't that mean that we lost those rights permanently?
     
  25. RevDisk

    RevDisk Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2004
    Messages:
    1,737
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    The official start to the "War on Terror" was after 9/11.

    Previous to that... You could pick dozens of dates. The Muslim Brotherhood (of which al Queda is a branch) started in 1928. al-Muwahhiddun (the correct term for "Wahhabi") started in the mid-1700's. But the Wahhabi sect is inspired by the scholar Ibn Taymiyya in the early 1300's.

    Keep in mind, the Muslim Brotherhood has been killing other Muslims since the 1940's. They fought Egyptian King Farouk's government during the 1940's. Assassinated the Egyptian PM in 1948. Attempted to kill Nasser in 1954. Assassinated Anwar Sadat in 1981. Faught the Alawite Muslims in Syria during the late 1970's and early 1980's. Attempted to assassinate Syria's President Assad in 1980. The Syrian Brotherhood declared jihad on the Iraqi Ba'ath Party a couple times.

    It was only in the 1980's did the Brotherhood start attacking "Western" governments. Namely, the USSR in Afghanistan. Incidently, the CIS is still fighting the Brotherhood in Chechnya. It was only after the USSR fell that the Brotherhood turned against America. Previously, they were considered useful assets. Just short of being 'allies'.



    I don't have to guess. Pakistan has nukes. They are a right wing Islamic country. Not as right wing as Saudi, but still very conservative. Iran possibly has nuclear weapons. No Islamic group has yet used WMD against America. (Re anthrax letters, nope. The sample came from USAMRIID.)


    I shall quote the Declaration of Independence.

    "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

    It did not say "all American citizens", it said all men. Basically that we believe our freedoms are universal, and granted to every person upon their birth.

    How hard is it to give the prisoners a fair trial? If guilty, punish. If not guilty, turn loose. Doesn't sound too complex to me.


    "He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche

    Pick up a copy of Dave Grossman's "On Killing". In addition to interesting information on psychological aspects of killing, he also meantions psychological aspects of surrender. In simpliest forms, if a person thinks they will be mistreated in captivity, they are less likely to surrender and more likely to fight to the death. While killing the enemy is a good thing, sometimes there are more efficient means of destroying an enemy. While messing with a prisoner's religious beliefs or mistreating prisoners may be amusing to some people, they are not generally efficient.

    For instance, during the first Gulf War, a lot of Iraqi soldiers simply surrendered. They believed the Americans would give them three hot meals a day, a soft bunk to sleep on and not mess with their religious beliefs. Compared to starving and sleeping on dirt... Well, the results speak for themselves. Circa 44% of the Iraqi soldiers surrendered.

    Careful what you wish for. Hoping the US military "does not play by the rules" may come back to haunt you when they engage in domestic operations. I don't give a damn about the prisoners per se. Yea, as humans they deserve the treatment we afford to any other prisoner. If guilty, punish them accordingly. If not, treat them well enough and release them. Telling the military to disregard human rights and actively mistreat prisoners starts us down a road that I do not think most Americans want to go.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page